I’d say you have it backwards. Rights tell you what actions are legitimate - what can be legitimately protected. In the case at hand, the shop owner can protect his property, but can’t kill the thief in the process because the thief has not renounced his right to life.
I don’t think the thief is voluntary agreeing to be killed.
Okay. I said there are two DROs involved. Are you playing dumb or what ?
You’re not justifying it. You just believe it’s right. You’ve provided no reason why it is so.
The shop owner can try to stop the thief using proportional force - which obviously doesn’t include murder.
Uh oh. You mean a $1 item is actually worth $1000000000 to the shop owner ? But isn’t he selling it for $1 ?
As far as I can see, no one is claiming that they are. Could you provide quotes where people here are saying such? I would very much appreciate it so we can see if you’re concocting a strawman or not.
Of course, we call can see that you are, but I figured I’d be nice here and make some effort.
By mind reading skills are you talking about psychiatrists?
I noticed Walter Block said this in that article, “It is fallacious to regard murderers as irrational: very few conduct their business in police stations.”
Irrational is a very general concept and I see what Block means here. I still find criminals to be irrational though, in the context that I mean it, which is they are not trying to reason with other people to come to agreeable terms by each individual involved. A criminal has thrown out reason and isn’t trying to be have intellectual discourse with their victims. They have abandoned the mind for brute force. But I see what Block means.
I personally am not for capital punishment, as of yet, meaning I haven’t been convinced yet. But if somebody was trying to kill me I would defend myself to the death if need be. I see capital punishment and self-defense as two different concepts.
Ok. Please ask me a question to help me figure out what you are trying to understand so I don’t ramble on about something that you already know about.[:D]
Why would the thief renounce his rights? Who must he renounce this right to? Does initiating violence not announce his want for coercive over voluntary relationships?
Why would he? The thief has commited violence (involuntary behavior), which subjects him to involuntary behavior of others in response. The criminal who chooses an involuntary relationship over a voluntary relationship should be dealt with as such. Any coercive act done to him is legitimized by the criminals own actions. He chooses involuntary over voluntary.
Just as I am subject to the laws of another country for violating them, I am also subject to the laws of each individuals property. The laws of the DRO which represents the citizens property would be superior to the DRO of the criminal.
I was asked where rights come from. I wasn’t saying any particular person on the forums was saying that. Generally speaking, talking about rights in the abstract lends itself to just that. The only purpose of such is to say what are ‘bad’ and ‘good’, while clearly the only person that can determine that is the individual himself. I believe it is much better to allow the individual to choose his ‘good’ and ‘bad’ than to attempt to find a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Voluntary contractual law allows for this. Individually chosen DRO’s will account for this.
Pablo, did you forget our little talk? I asked you where rights came from.
You suggested that, depending on the definition, they are imagined, or that they rely on a contractual agreement.
I said “And if I refuse your contract, then what? Do you then have any rights?”
[EDIT: Also, how are you getting so many points per post? And if you’re getting 20-35 points per post, how is it that I am getting 5 and yet have more points than you with less posts?]
Rothbard, whose position was repeated unthinkably here several times, was wrong on ‘voluntary slavery contracts’. See Block: A Libertarian Theory of Inalienability
No it doesn’t. At best the thief’s actions imply that he doesn’t object to petty thievery. But it does not follow that, through the act of stealing bubblegum, the thief has declared that the death penalty and summary executions are morally justified.
I know you just want to believe that anybody who engages in any act of coercion can be immediately executed. Oh well. Even the most totalitarian states are usually more civilized than that.
Yes, proportionally.
You are not going to tire of repeating the same baseless assertion no ? Yours is the “appeal-to-broken-record” argument eh ?
What ???
Nonsense. As I said, PDAs can’t create contracts/law that go against natural law. Well, they can, but then they are the kind of PDA known as the mafia or the state.
Selling an item for $1 does not mean that having someone steal that same item from you will only harm you $1. It could be worth much more, or much less. This is demonstrated in that if he were to shoot the man for stealing it, one of three things is occuring- either the item is worth a whole lot to the shooter, the mans pain/life is worth very little to the shooter, or inflicting pain on the man is something the shooter values.
That is an entirely subjective statement. I am sure you and your DRO can figure out a policy which will fit in perfect for you. How is proportional force measured? Calories burned? Time taken? What happens if the defender accidently miscalculates?